From: David Howells on
Michel Lespinasse <walken(a)google.com> wrote:

> + /* if there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
> + *
> + * or if we're called from a failed down_write(), and there were
> + * already threads queued before us, and there are no active writers,
> + * the lock must be read owned; try to wake any read locks that were
> + * queued ahead of us. */

That looks weird. Can I suggest rewriting it thus:

/* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
*
* Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
* were already threads queued before us and there are no active
* writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
* locks that were queued ahead of us. */

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Howells on
Michel Lespinasse <walken(a)google.com> wrote:

> + * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
> + * were already threads queued before us, and there are no active
> + * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
> + * locks that were queued ahead of us. */

The comma you've added after 'us' is wrong. That suggests that the implicit
'then' comes there. I take it you're a proponent of the Oxford/Harvard/serial
comma?

Apart from that miscellaneous grammatical difference, the patch is fine:-)

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/